For the life of me, I can't understand why this is such a trendy topic on HN. If you walk into any grocery store or pharmacy, there are at least two aisles stocked with nothing but meal-replacement shakes.
One of the aisles is targeted at young people, with marketing themes around bodybuilding or triathlon training. The other aisle is targeted at senior citizens, with marketing themes around osteoporosis or longevity. There might be a third aisle, or a portion of one of the other two, targeting mostly women with themes of weight loss. However, it's pretty much the same stuff in the bottle on any aisle.
Soylent looks to be a online aisle, targeting the exact same stuff to tech-savvy hipsters, with themes of lifehacking and and classic sci-fi cinema.
I'm sure that your particular Brawndo is special because it has electrolytes, or whatever, but I don't understand why the underlying concept of a meal-replacement shake warrants so much coverage. This concept isn't the least bit novel.
You gave the reason yourself: The existing market is segmented, and none of those markets shouts 'average HN user'.
Compare the marketing/segmentation of the existing products:
Senior citizens: For old people / a worse replacement for regular meals / medical.
Women losing weight: I'm fat / unhealthy / a worse replacement for regular meals / temporary, once I've lost the weight I'll switch back.
Bodybuilders: DUDE, CHECK OUT MY LATS. I ALWAYS DO 10 x 10 DP SETS AND THEN SLAM DOWN A PROTEIN SHAKE. DUUUUUDE.
Soylent: For many people, on many occasions, food is a hassle, especially when trying to eat well. It allows one to enjoy the health benefits of a well balanced diet with less effort and cost.
Now which of these is going to attract, and which is going to repel, the stereotypical HN user?
Of course these are stereotypes, but this is marketing, and segmenting often uses stereotypes to push people into making different purchasing decisions: As an average HN user, I'm going to feel weird/wrong buying a women's weight loss shake, or a senior citizens medical food, or a gym expert's protein shake, but I'm going to feel great buying Soylent, because I fit into the marketing.
My point is that none of the existing products on the market market all these points:
* An equal replacement for food, instead of a worse substitute on one axis or another (at least nutritionally);
* An all the time replacement, not just for a specific purpose;
* Market direct to the consumer (this seems to be the issue with some of the replacements used in hospitals).
Now, whether Soylent actually meets these claims, or whether the stereotypes are actually relevant to the contents of the products themselves, is largely irrelevant at this point. This is marketing, and HN users are gullible to it like everyone else. (Personally, I'm rooting for Soylent)
Re the name, which a bunch of people who seriously fail to see why that name: because it is rebellious in exactly the way average HN users are suckers for.
The main difference is that most of those meal replacements lack many nutrients, that makes them useful as a replacement for a meal or two every now and then. Soylent is attempting to provide every single nutrient required by our bodies, thus making it a permanent replacement for food.
Isn't this a YC-invested company? Other than that, I agree with you. I'm not interested in Soylent the product, nor am I interested in Soylent the company. I tell my friends to be wary of using the product.
I'm starting to think this has to be a viral marketing campaign / social experiment.
It's an interesting premise that people would entrust their long term health to unqualified individuals, who lack the resources to employ qualified individuals, simply for an extra hour everyday.
Perhaps simply watching it all unfold as opposed to just going and buying something.
Personally I am curious as to how it works out; I've never been one to buy gels or sports drinks, preferring to make my own because I know what goes in them and can tweak it for me. I get this vibe from the Soylent project.
Exactly. If you want to live on liquids alone you could just stick to milk. I know a cheap person that lived on nothing but oats and milk for quite a while to save money. Nothing I'd do for a new laptop or other equipment.
I think I've heard of past attempts, but they didn't seem to catch on? This Soylent stuff seems to be "proving" itself; or at least not debunked enough to drop it just yet. If it truly does work, I think a lot of 3rd world countries would benefit from it. So at least for me, I'm interested in the developments of Soylent. In general, I'm interested in any tech that TRULY is world-changing even if it's not in the form of a computer. Now do I think it belongs on HN? That's a bit debatable, but if people are upvoting it(and not gaming the system) then it has the right to be here just like anything else. Maybe HN is slowy changing to be more than strictly 0s & 1s news?
How on Earth is ten days enough to test anything in regards to diet? Pretty sure humans don't notice much change in that time, let alone enough to measure? Day to day numbers fluctuate by a lot, so wouldn't it have to be tested over a longer period for it to be valid?
> Various doctors, dietitians, and food scientists
> have been reviewing our formula and providing
> suggestions as they see fit. We have been listening
> to them and testing these changes in our beta
> program. Each modification requires making a new
> batch of Soylent by hand, shipping them to our
> beta testers, and gathering their feedback, a
> process that takes at least 10 days per revision.
The idea that the dietary advice of a doctor could meaningfully be tested in a few weeks by a beta program of laypeople with no scientific controls is utterly ridiculous.
Even if you had a large beta program and ran each revisions for 100 days, the feedback would be garbage unless you had proper controls and measurements in place.
They are probably treating it like more of a smoke test. In 10 days you can certainly get a good idea about changes in flavor, texture, preparation, etc. You also ought to get some feedback on whether a formula change resulted in any immediate health concerns.
Even the (not very scientific) test from the EU Food-Safety-Agency make 90-days trials on animals (and that does not tell a lot imho).
If you want to know, if you are allergic, a short test should be sufficient. If you wanna know, if allergies might be initiated from the food, 10 days don't do much good. If you want to know, if some known things (nutrition, et al) are missing from the "food" 10 days won't do you much good and might only be detected in really rigorous blood-tests.
If you want to check for problems with unknown unknowns (and there are a lot of things we yet do not know, regarding food and our bodies) 10 days are nothing more then a nice joke. (Sorry, but living with a biologist make me quite cynical, when it comes to things, that might just endanger us.)
A really scientific method is something else. They might stumble upon some things, but I'd like to know, if every beta-tester gets his blood-work done before and after every test. How does the testing process in the first place look like (blood tests as said? just taste? subjective feeling after n-days of new soylent version? and so on).
> so everyone will get their complete amino acid profile
No everyone will get a one size fits all amino acid profile. And then comes the problem, that humans aren't "one size fits all". They will probably get a solution, that fits one, two or probably max. three sigma of the targeted population.
To be fair, I love food, so soylent would not be for me. I really think, that a cheap food-replacement that does give most people mostly everything they need in terms of nutrition, might really do a lot of good, if distributed in times of disaster or in regions with problematic food distribution (third world). But that is not the targeted audience as I see it.
It seems to be people who do not value food, but have enough money on their hand, to replace it with this product.
"The onset of symptoms of scurvy depends on how long it takes for the person to use up their limited stores of vitamin C. For example, if the diet includes no vitamin C at all, the average onset of symptoms is about four weeks"
They're at the point of making changes to "taste, texture, and smell" - the dietary side of the formula is nailed down already, and I am willing to believe was tested more rigorously.
My uncle was born with a digestive tract defect that was not detected until he was of middle age. (The only sign that he had any health problem at all was that he was of only average height, in a family in which all his five brothers were tall.) He was on total parenteral nutrition
for something like twenty years before dying last week at the age of ninety-one. It's basic medical background knowledge that keeps me from being impressed by the Soylent shot in the dark, and it is reflecting that human nutrition is both
a) mostly a hard problem, and
b) mostly a SOLVED problem
that keeps me from making gee-whiz comments about the Soylent project here on HN. The great thing about a free-enterprise economy with minimal regulation is that if you like this kind of thing, you can spend your hard-earned money to buy Soylent. If your eating behavior includes experiential or social outcomes better met by eating a variety of foods you cook and chew, you can join me in eating a little of this and a little of that over the course of a year. The Soylent company is YC-invested, as I recall, so press releases from the company will continue to be posted here, but meanwhile I will pursue a variety of micronutrients and a variety of pleasant experiences by eating a varied diet with my family and friends.
I don't know how many different formulas they'll make in the future, but I'd love one with some sort of crushed up powdered oats mix instead of maltodextrin or other not-so-great carb sources. There are very few meal replacements in the supplement market that aren't filled with maltodextrin or sugar alcohols. I'd love something that's the equivalent of a meal I could put in a blender (e.g. banana, natural peanut butter, oats, and maybe some protein powder) without all the added chemicals.
My DIY blend uses oat flour. There are a lot of soylent recipes out there - the hacker school soylent recipe [1] is a nice oat-flour based one with a decent default nutritional profile.
edit: also note, the only synthesised 'chemicals' most recipes include are potassium gluconate and calcium citrate. Everything else is a food or food extract.
Does anyone remember the early post from this guy where he said that he just wanted to stop spending so much of his time and energy on food? Now it's all he does. He "wakes up every day thinking about it."
Has anyone published a post about their experience with Soylent where they didn't use it to replace all their meals, but just maybe one or two of them a day? That's the use case I'm interested in.
I agree completely, I would think that's the exact use case most of us are interested in. It sounds like the perfect breakfast drink or quick on the go lunch.
Soylent is probably overkill for this use case. As long as you eat a reasonable healthy real-food meal every day, all you really need from a meal replacement are some macronutrients and maybe electrolytes. I mean, you could drink yoghurt for breakfast every day and be fine.
Soylent is designed to completely replace food which is a much harder & much more expensive proposition than simply giving you some energy until dinnertime.
I find this project interesting, especially since it seems to be able to lower my cost of living (currently I buy for around 300 EUR a month of food, using Soylent should be able to lower this to ~220 EUR from what I understand). Yet, at the same time I worry how healthy it would be on the long term. For example, research has shown that vitamin pills are often detrimental to ones health and could even increase the chance of getting cancer. I wonder if Soylent uses much the same ingredients of vitamin pills.
Even though it isn't for me (I actually like food, finding it one of the greatest pleasures in life), the Soylent story still presents an interesting storyline to me. But I've always wondered: Why the name Soylent? Aren't there some negative connotations to that? Is it...made of people?
An aspect of Soylent that I don't get is the assumption that it gets you out of the drudgery of eating, for those people for whom it is such a chore: the idea of chugging multiple cups of gray, sludgy drink daily sounds like an enormous burden that would grow tiring really quickly. It sounds like something that would make you dread the passing of the day, as another cup of slurry draws ever closer.
I speak at least a bit from experience, as one stage in my life had me working out daily, starting each with a big protein drink. Over time I realized that I was dreading, if not even skipping, the workout because of the protein drink that went with it.
There is a use case that you maybe didn't think of:
I love to eat. I love to eat too much. If I make two portions of a meal with the intention of eating the other one later, I'll often just eat both. Where food is concerned, I'm like a labrador dog; I have no willpower. Everyone I know in my family is like this.
I'm mildly overweight, but only just because I play sports, hike and go to the gym a lot. I'd love to have a way of eating ideal my calorific intake with no fuss or special eating time because it would make it much easier to avoid overeating - I could still eat proper food a couple of times a week for the sheer pleasure, but not every mealtime would become a hazardous temptation to eat way, way too much. Soylent looks like a possible way of achieving that.
I love food too. If I weren't a programmer I would be a chef. But just like sex, I want to have it when I feel like it, not in a rigorous schedule determined by society.
In fact, not eating food as often makes you appreciate it more when you have it. Go three months without eating pizza and then have some, how did it taste? Now eat pizza every day for three months and then have some more, how did it taste?
I currently eat once a day and I would gladly replace some of my meals with this drink. That would allow me to eat, say three times a week, enjoying the food that I really crave. As a food lover, this is the perfect product for me.
I've been doing DIY soylent for a few months now. I have to say it really does liberate much of the day, and it isn't at all a chore. It's easy to drink, I just sip it throughout the day. It has only a vague taste, and is a bit like drinking thick water. It might sound like it would be unpleasant or boring, but it isn't. I still have normal meals in the evening, but more and more I've come to feel like going all-soylent.
There are also Red and Yellow flavors of Soylent, from the movie. Green is the "new and improved" flavor. And though I haven't been able to source a direct reference, I think the connotation is only the new, Green flavor has the human secret sauce. Soylent is a total-food substitute for the apocalyptic / dystopian future.
It's still not a great name because it will always bring the negative connotation for those familiar with the movie. But I see where the inventor was going with it.
I've discovered that there are two types of people: Those who live to eat and those who eat to live. I am the former, and Soylent seems to target the latter. I am always looking forward to my next meal. I love to eat, and removing that would be removing a large part of what makes life fulfilling for me.
>> An aspect of Soylent that I don't get is the assumption that it gets you out of the drudgery of eating
Maybe not everybody is going to use it as a straight meal replacement. I for one like to think I would enjoy a glass for breakfast. Or maybe even for a quick working lunch, you know, on those days I'm too busy at work to stop and smell the roses and go out for an 1.5hr lunch break.... I've seen sooo many people get up in arms about completely replacing food. "ZOMG WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE LIKE FOOD" etc.. Really, I'm fascinated by the nutrition needs of the human body, and I think trying to cram everything into a drink is a curious concept. And yes, on those days I'm on the road, I think it would be better than stopping at say, Mcdonalds or Subway. Likely in both taste and health.
Also, Only Soylent green is people. All the other soylents (red? purple? I don't remember the colors..) were legit food I believe. I do enjoy the irony though...
I think the name "Soylent" is brilliant. It's memorable precisely because of its association with Soylent Green. Nobody is actually going to make the naive mistake of believing it's made of people.
>>the idea of chugging multiple cups of gray, sludgy drink daily sounds like an enormous burden that would grow tiring really quickly. It sounds like something that would make you dread the passing of the day, as another cup of slurry draws ever closer.
I guess some people just don't care about taste as much as they care about superior nutrition that uses less resources to produce and transport, and less time to prepare, consume and clean up.
[+] [-] StevePerkins|12 years ago|reply
One of the aisles is targeted at young people, with marketing themes around bodybuilding or triathlon training. The other aisle is targeted at senior citizens, with marketing themes around osteoporosis or longevity. There might be a third aisle, or a portion of one of the other two, targeting mostly women with themes of weight loss. However, it's pretty much the same stuff in the bottle on any aisle.
Soylent looks to be a online aisle, targeting the exact same stuff to tech-savvy hipsters, with themes of lifehacking and and classic sci-fi cinema.
I'm sure that your particular Brawndo is special because it has electrolytes, or whatever, but I don't understand why the underlying concept of a meal-replacement shake warrants so much coverage. This concept isn't the least bit novel.
[+] [-] bloopletech|12 years ago|reply
Compare the marketing/segmentation of the existing products:
Senior citizens: For old people / a worse replacement for regular meals / medical.
Women losing weight: I'm fat / unhealthy / a worse replacement for regular meals / temporary, once I've lost the weight I'll switch back.
Bodybuilders: DUDE, CHECK OUT MY LATS. I ALWAYS DO 10 x 10 DP SETS AND THEN SLAM DOWN A PROTEIN SHAKE. DUUUUUDE.
Soylent: For many people, on many occasions, food is a hassle, especially when trying to eat well. It allows one to enjoy the health benefits of a well balanced diet with less effort and cost.
Now which of these is going to attract, and which is going to repel, the stereotypical HN user?
Of course these are stereotypes, but this is marketing, and segmenting often uses stereotypes to push people into making different purchasing decisions: As an average HN user, I'm going to feel weird/wrong buying a women's weight loss shake, or a senior citizens medical food, or a gym expert's protein shake, but I'm going to feel great buying Soylent, because I fit into the marketing.
My point is that none of the existing products on the market market all these points: * An equal replacement for food, instead of a worse substitute on one axis or another (at least nutritionally); * An all the time replacement, not just for a specific purpose; * Market direct to the consumer (this seems to be the issue with some of the replacements used in hospitals).
Now, whether Soylent actually meets these claims, or whether the stereotypes are actually relevant to the contents of the products themselves, is largely irrelevant at this point. This is marketing, and HN users are gullible to it like everyone else. (Personally, I'm rooting for Soylent)
Re the name, which a bunch of people who seriously fail to see why that name: because it is rebellious in exactly the way average HN users are suckers for.
[+] [-] sker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marknutter|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fingerprinter|12 years ago|reply
People can and have lived on liquid food for quite a long time. This isn't new, this isn't particularly interesting or groundbreaking in anyway.
Why the fascination on HN? Can someone explain it to me?
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
Isn't this a YC-invested company? Other than that, I agree with you. I'm not interested in Soylent the product, nor am I interested in Soylent the company. I tell my friends to be wary of using the product.
[+] [-] hermaj|12 years ago|reply
It's an interesting premise that people would entrust their long term health to unqualified individuals, who lack the resources to employ qualified individuals, simply for an extra hour everyday.
[+] [-] fc2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obibring|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mipapage|12 years ago|reply
Personally I am curious as to how it works out; I've never been one to buy gels or sports drinks, preferring to make my own because I know what goes in them and can tweak it for me. I get this vibe from the Soylent project.
[+] [-] fosap|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smtddr|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Carlee|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gabemart|12 years ago|reply
Even if you had a large beta program and ran each revisions for 100 days, the feedback would be garbage unless you had proper controls and measurements in place.
[+] [-] gnoway|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdoering|12 years ago|reply
If you want to know, if you are allergic, a short test should be sufficient. If you wanna know, if allergies might be initiated from the food, 10 days don't do much good. If you want to know, if some known things (nutrition, et al) are missing from the "food" 10 days won't do you much good and might only be detected in really rigorous blood-tests.
If you want to check for problems with unknown unknowns (and there are a lot of things we yet do not know, regarding food and our bodies) 10 days are nothing more then a nice joke. (Sorry, but living with a biologist make me quite cynical, when it comes to things, that might just endanger us.)
A really scientific method is something else. They might stumble upon some things, but I'd like to know, if every beta-tester gets his blood-work done before and after every test. How does the testing process in the first place look like (blood tests as said? just taste? subjective feeling after n-days of new soylent version? and so on).
> so everyone will get their complete amino acid profile
No everyone will get a one size fits all amino acid profile. And then comes the problem, that humans aren't "one size fits all". They will probably get a solution, that fits one, two or probably max. three sigma of the targeted population.
To be fair, I love food, so soylent would not be for me. I really think, that a cheap food-replacement that does give most people mostly everything they need in terms of nutrition, might really do a lot of good, if distributed in times of disaster or in regions with problematic food distribution (third world). But that is not the targeted audience as I see it.
It seems to be people who do not value food, but have enough money on their hand, to replace it with this product.
[+] [-] rsynnott|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbutler|12 years ago|reply
"The onset of symptoms of scurvy depends on how long it takes for the person to use up their limited stores of vitamin C. For example, if the diet includes no vitamin C at all, the average onset of symptoms is about four weeks"
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pag...
[+] [-] ig1|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thisishugo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juice13|12 years ago|reply
I would think twice before committing to a soylent-only diet.
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a601166.htm...
for something like twenty years before dying last week at the age of ninety-one. It's basic medical background knowledge that keeps me from being impressed by the Soylent shot in the dark, and it is reflecting that human nutrition is both
a) mostly a hard problem, and
b) mostly a SOLVED problem
that keeps me from making gee-whiz comments about the Soylent project here on HN. The great thing about a free-enterprise economy with minimal regulation is that if you like this kind of thing, you can spend your hard-earned money to buy Soylent. If your eating behavior includes experiential or social outcomes better met by eating a variety of foods you cook and chew, you can join me in eating a little of this and a little of that over the course of a year. The Soylent company is YC-invested, as I recall, so press releases from the company will continue to be posted here, but meanwhile I will pursue a variety of micronutrients and a variety of pleasant experiences by eating a varied diet with my family and friends.
[+] [-] jonathanjaeger|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Blahah|12 years ago|reply
1: http://www.cookingfor20.com/2013/06/18/hacker-school-soylent...
edit: also note, the only synthesised 'chemicals' most recipes include are potassium gluconate and calcium citrate. Everything else is a food or food extract.
[+] [-] gavinpc|12 years ago|reply
Now that's ironic.
[+] [-] frakkingcylons|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImprovedSilence|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delluminatus|12 years ago|reply
Soylent is designed to completely replace food which is a much harder & much more expensive proposition than simply giving you some energy until dinnertime.
[+] [-] wsc981|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shorel|12 years ago|reply
Bonus points for a Paleo friendly version.
As it is now, I would never get close to that carbohydrate-based drink.
[+] [-] corresation|12 years ago|reply
An aspect of Soylent that I don't get is the assumption that it gets you out of the drudgery of eating, for those people for whom it is such a chore: the idea of chugging multiple cups of gray, sludgy drink daily sounds like an enormous burden that would grow tiring really quickly. It sounds like something that would make you dread the passing of the day, as another cup of slurry draws ever closer.
I speak at least a bit from experience, as one stage in my life had me working out daily, starting each with a big protein drink. Over time I realized that I was dreading, if not even skipping, the workout because of the protein drink that went with it.
[+] [-] nagrom|12 years ago|reply
I love to eat. I love to eat too much. If I make two portions of a meal with the intention of eating the other one later, I'll often just eat both. Where food is concerned, I'm like a labrador dog; I have no willpower. Everyone I know in my family is like this.
I'm mildly overweight, but only just because I play sports, hike and go to the gym a lot. I'd love to have a way of eating ideal my calorific intake with no fuss or special eating time because it would make it much easier to avoid overeating - I could still eat proper food a couple of times a week for the sheer pleasure, but not every mealtime would become a hazardous temptation to eat way, way too much. Soylent looks like a possible way of achieving that.
[+] [-] sker|12 years ago|reply
In fact, not eating food as often makes you appreciate it more when you have it. Go three months without eating pizza and then have some, how did it taste? Now eat pizza every day for three months and then have some more, how did it taste?
I currently eat once a day and I would gladly replace some of my meals with this drink. That would allow me to eat, say three times a week, enjoying the food that I really crave. As a food lover, this is the perfect product for me.
[+] [-] Blahah|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xanadohnt|12 years ago|reply
It's still not a great name because it will always bring the negative connotation for those familiar with the movie. But I see where the inventor was going with it.
[+] [-] baggachipz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ImprovedSilence|12 years ago|reply
Maybe not everybody is going to use it as a straight meal replacement. I for one like to think I would enjoy a glass for breakfast. Or maybe even for a quick working lunch, you know, on those days I'm too busy at work to stop and smell the roses and go out for an 1.5hr lunch break.... I've seen sooo many people get up in arms about completely replacing food. "ZOMG WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE LIKE FOOD" etc.. Really, I'm fascinated by the nutrition needs of the human body, and I think trying to cram everything into a drink is a curious concept. And yes, on those days I'm on the road, I think it would be better than stopping at say, Mcdonalds or Subway. Likely in both taste and health.
Also, Only Soylent green is people. All the other soylents (red? purple? I don't remember the colors..) were legit food I believe. I do enjoy the irony though...
[+] [-] marknutter|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fc2|12 years ago|reply
I guess some people just don't care about taste as much as they care about superior nutrition that uses less resources to produce and transport, and less time to prepare, consume and clean up.
[+] [-] Leander_B|12 years ago|reply